Don’t erode any of Bill of Rights

The rationale behind the current restrictions on guns argues that when the Second Amendment was written, guns did not have high-capacity magazines, suppressors, were not semiautomatic, etc. Using the same argument, I propose that when the First Amendment was written, we had only pens and ink and hand printing presses, and the spoken word only within hearable distance. Therefore, should we restrict current forms of communication? Should we limit the number of texts and emails sent?

Our forefathers had no idea that any citizen could send a message to thousands of people simultaneously and instantaneously through emails and texting or that crazy, evil people and those wishing harm to our government and its citizens could communicate instantaneously to thousands of people even without invitation. They can research simple home bomb-making techniques, recruit and teach terrorist attacks, use high-speed worldwide communications to incite violent demonstrations, for soliciting and contracting murder and other crimes, and even causing such personal duress that individuals have committed suicide.

Perhaps we should limit texts to only two per person, emails to three per person and definitely not allow emails sent to multiple people at the same time. Also each name and address must be typed manually and individually – no group or multiple textings or mailings. Perhaps such electronic forms of communication should be allowed only if you pass certain background checks and mental tests. Should speedy typists be allowed? No one needs high-speed Internet, smartphones and television news as our forefathers had no idea this technology would be available.

My First Amendment rights mean I can communicate using whatever technological device I choose. Likewise, my Second Amendment rights mean I can own whatever kind of gun I choose. We should not erode our Bill of Rights in any way by adding restrictions and limitations.

Leesa Lile